"We ... recognize ... that allowing this case to move forward could embolden abusers ... and could discourage victims and their families from seeking help. But, at the same time, we must acknowledge the potential for false accusations and the right that someone who is falsely accused has to recover for the harm thereby caused."
“We conclude no reasonable person would believe Plummer created a website describing himself as vexatious, incompetent, or dishonest.”
"The allegedly defamatory nature of this statement is the implication that Plaintiff holds itself out as a local business when it is not. But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation under Delaware law, and the ... Declaration [submitted by Avas] does not deny that Plaintiff maintains call centers abroad in locations such as Mexico or Asia."
A federal court held that Prince was a public figure, and hadn't offered enough plausible allegations that the defendants knew the statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" showing).
An appeal a day late (even if not a dollar short). [UPDATE: But there may be a lifesaving treatment!]
"On information and belief, and as discovery will likely reveal, Green has been acting as a proxy for another performer who, mistakenly believing that she and Plaintiff are stars of equal stature, has repeatedly used other social media intermediaries in a hopeless effort to advance her career at Plaintiff’s expense."
Winslow had accused a doctor working on contract with an immigration detention center of "perform[ing] illegal hysterectomies on women at the direction of Trump and [DHS]."
The U.S. shouldn't import British defamation law, no matter how much Donald Trump would like to.
This comes in a false light lawsuit by the family of former National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn, whom CNN had labeled “QAnon followers.”
From a libel case filed by accused triple murderer Brice Rhodes
All the lawsuits stem from the media's quoting Nathan Phillips' claims that Sandmann was "block[ing Phillips'] way" at a demonstration by the Lincoln Memorial.
A potentially very important 2-1 decision today from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which held that such a #MeToo post wasn’t on a “matter of public concern,” and was thus less protected by the First Amendment.
Among other things, "A jury could reasonably conclude that, before making so weighty an accusation as rape based on nothing more than hearsay evidence, the prudent person would, at a minimum, want to hear the other person's side of the story."
The lawsuit, which stems from statements about the fraternity’s use of a salute that looks similar to a Nazi salute and robes that some viewed as similar to Klan robes was rejected chiefly on the grounds that the statement was about the fraternity not the plaintiff, and was in any event opinion.
A good illustration of how many courts deal with personal jurisdiction in libel cases.
Good thing Zak Smith had lawyer characters with 18 Tort Law Acumen.
Litigating defamation claims "in secrecy to avoid any potential embarrassment to" their subjects "directly contradicts the presumptive right of public access to pleadings and judicial proceedings."
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks